Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Mikula

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

NOTE: Additional pages have been added and linked to the Shawn Mikula page. Also, the page has been further edited and an attempt has been made to de-vanitize it. 16:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

  • I listed one of additional pages on Vfd. Please, read Wikipedia guidelines, in particular, Wikipedia:Auto-biography before making more contributions. Andris 17:19, May 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Texture, I think it's premature to remove the links to this page. If this page gets deleted, then you remove the links, not before. I'm going to go ahead and place the links back up. 17:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
    • I have gone ahead and de-vanitized it further. I think it looks pretty good now. I'd be curious to hear if other people still think it's a vanity article. If so, that's fine, but I have done all I can with the page. The next step is up to the voters. Please vote honestly and not as a knee-jerk reaction to all of the silliness and antics below. Thanks. 19:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: Excessively voluminous discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Shawn Mikula. Text of all votes retained. Do see full discussion for context, and for very extensive arguments in support of the page presented by usernames User:Shawn314, User:Janus san, User:Mikula, User:, User:, and several other anons. Dpbsmith 01:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

  • (For anons, read "sock puppets"). RickK 22:56, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

  • Classic vanity page. Isomorphic 22:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Aha! Vanity! Delete! - Lucky 6.9 22:26, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should also delete related article —Frecklefoot 22:32, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed, unless someone can demonstrate Mikula's significance, of course. I concur with Frecklefoot about Jwrosenzweig 22:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • About Shawn Mikula's significance, see the following: --
  • Neutral. The person's article certainly has a ways to go to indicate notability (any books, works published in journals or other third parties, etc.)--is this the same person that has a bunch of poetry hits? Also, it should link to the WP mind-brain article, rather than the external link. is at the top of the category "Subjects > Society > Philosophy > Philosophy of Mind > Consciousness Studies"., but it would be a better article if it gave more details about accomplishments than objectives.Both articles should focus more on detailing notable accomplishments/works, instead of airy jargo-babble about intentions/beliefs. Keep if improved, I guess is what I'm trying to say. Niteowlneils 00:14, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, see Ecclesiastes 1:2. Dpbsmith 02:19, 15 May 2004 (UTC) P. S. And one of his poems, Am I to blame?
  • Delete: self promotion, nonnotable. A few journal and conference publications is, sadly, no sign of notability, and neither is a vanity web site. I looked at the abstracts for a couple of his papers and it looks like pretty typical academic journal material -- solid work, I'm sure, but not distinguished. Come back in a decade or two, Shawn, but leave the poetry out of it, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:29, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good point re. that Anissimov article. Someone listed it as needing cleanup, but I'm of a mind to put it up for delete. Anyone else want to take a look at it? - Lucky 6.9 16:21, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Vanity, and now abuse. See talk:Michael Anissimov for my comments on that page. Some linked pages should also go IMO. Andrewa 16:37, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clear vanity, abuse, etc. Plus the author obviously feels like he has something to hide if he won't even sign his posts. I don't see Mikula's relevance at all. blankfaze 19:38, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. No evidence of achievement that merits being in encyclopedia. Every graduate student writes papers and presents them at conferences. Andris 21:32, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete both pages. The "solution" to the mind-body problem mentioned in the article seems to be nothing more than a retreading of functionalism. This is a classic vanity page. The fact that he added himself to a list of philosophers working on the mind-body problem next to Daniel Dennett just adds insult to injury. Of the Google hits, nearly all of them seem to be crap indexes that he's added himself to. Adam Conover 22:07, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, especially since this person is trying so hard to keep it without giving us any reason why it's worth having. RickK 04:39, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, Vanity. Well written vanity, but still vanity. --Starx 13:37, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep it. 14:59, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. It's not a vanity page. - 15:09, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Excuse this poor language, please, but STOP THIS STUPID ASS DISCUSSION AND DELETE THE FUCKING PAGE! blankfaze 17:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - vanity. I would not have paid attention to this one except for his vandalism of many pages in retaliation for this nomination. - Tεxτurε 20:28, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Couldn't agree more with User:Texture. I wouldn't have cared much either way if it wasn't for his absurdly bad behaviour. That said, the guy does have a point in there being lots of other vanity articles on Wikipedia that should also go. Go ahead. -- Jao 20:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. For all this talk, I still haven't seen a reason this guy is notable. -- Cyrius|&#9998 22:55, May 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • This thread was fun to read. However, the guy's desperate attempts to argue underline his irrelevance. DELETE. --Netlad 23:51, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know what all the fuss is about. I don't see anything wrong with the page under discussion. However, it could be cleaned up somewhat and maybe the reference to the guy's website removed altogether. Other than that, I vote to 'Keep it'. Rajesh918 16:35, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Yet again another sockpuppet. RickK 22:57, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly vanity, and the only votes to keep are all reds. We shouldn't let 1 person cause all this mess. PlatinumX 06:05, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Vote complete - article deleted